- Join Kobo & start eReading today
- Library Catalogue
- Indigenous Studies And Engaged Anthropology
- Public Anthropology | Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology
Laura Peers University of Oxford Search for more papers by this author. Read the full text. Tools Request permission Export citation Add to favorites Track citation.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Share Give access Share full text access. Share full text access.
Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article. Volume 24 , Issue 3 September Pages Related Information. In recent decades, for example, the discipline of anthropology has been engaged in a slow and uneven retreat from the holistic culture concept, as represented by E. When considering the right ethical balance for anthropology, particularly as it navigates the implications of military humanitarianism and other humanitarian ventures, inspiration can be taken from kindred discussions in the thriving anthropology of human rights, which are little concerned with pronouncing the human rights model correct or incorrect.
The socially constitutive nature of anthropological field work is not legible in the terms of controlled environments typical of medical research. Social environments are often presented as nonplaces and subjects given no role in the active construction of research results, while science is presented as a sometimes problematic intervention into society, requiring oversight, but not in itself an essentially social activity. The anthropologist Rena Lederman has emphasized the tensions between ethnography and standard defined-in-advance and replicable hypothesis-testing protocols.
As Maureen Fitzgerald has made the point, ethnographers are rarely aware in detail of the specific parameters of informed consent prior to undertaking research. In the process, the identities of counterparts in research are often marginalized to that of the controlled experimental subject, while the enabling social contexts of ethnography are actively suppressed, now as a largely inert background context. In other words, IRB-type ethical frames for human subjects tend to delegitimize key hallmarks of ethnographic work: the serendipitously productive open-endedness of participant observation, as it evolves in relation to unexpected developments in the field, as contingent upon the social relations composing ethnographic research.
Rather than apply standard procedures for informed consent, it is routine for ethnographers to develop these standards with research subjects in the course of work. Janine Wedel described exactly this when explaining her attribution strategy for interviewing U.
This is a good example of an ethical engagement closely wedded to the contingencies of ongoing research practice. The packaging of research for IRB assessment to meet the requirements of prior accountability based on preexistent research designs assuming informed consent obligate ethnographers to clean up any potential signs of social contamination as part of their method in ways designed to increase the resemblance of ethnography to the controlled settings of more traditional research. In the current IRB environment, deception and ethics, we might say, go hand-in-hand with ethnography.
This institutional opacity to oversight is one way in which a relative lack of transparency tends to characterize ethnographic practice. This dilemma suggests where it might be best to locate ethics with respect to disciplinary practice, in the process liberating it from any forced exercise legislating uniformity in the circumstances—the particularities—of what constitutes such work. As part of any prescriptive, community-building and discipline-bounding exercise, ethics tends to insist upon clear and unambiguous language to draw categorical lines in the sand to include or preclude [fill in the blank].
These relationships are not static. But engagement, understood in such terms, certainly does not exhaust the range of possible relationships with counterparts.
Engaged ethnographic practice has been alternately compared and contrasted with so-called public anthropology. Ethical conduct for an ethnographer toward a given population, in this case, would depend on where its members are understood to be located, as part of, but not the same as, any larger public.
This is certainly the case with ethnographers working on behalf of the U. While the differences between these roles—as paired with research—are blurred, ethnographers have drawn these distinctions in different ways. And to expose these community secrets, she herself conducted research undercover while not disclosing her purpose to her criminal research subjects.
- Practicing engaged anthropology!
- Software Configuration Management Using Vesta (Monographs in Computer Science).
- Search results.
- Collaboration: Translation | Society for Cultural Anthropology.
As we have been emphasizing, anthropology is currently engaged with itself in a regular discussion about proliferating kinds of research trajectories and alignments with research counterparts and communities. Disciplinary research relationships are at once more variable, more often contested than previously, and framed within a broader variety of collaborative agendas with counterparts. And these accounts do not neatly converge; they often raise very different questions, but they encourage an ongoing and active discussion of their ethics.
- An Introduction to Phytoplanktons: Diversity and Ecology.
- Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World (General Military).
- ENTROPY: INTO THE GREENHOUSE WORLD;
- Coaching Manual: The Definitive Guide to the Process, Principles & Skills of Personal Coaching;
- Indigenous studies and engaged anthropology : the collaborative moment /.
- Beyond multispecies ethnography: Engaging with violence and animal rights in anthropology.
- Engaged Anthropology | SpringerLink;
And as the intersection of military efforts with humanitarian work continues to evolve, if amid controversy, emerging and associated sites of practice pose new ethnographic dilemmas for making ethical sense of the relations of privacy to secrecy to transparency. Considerations of secrecy versus openness often emphasize their incompatibility, but alongside impoverished accounts of the ethnographic relationship, presented as if straightforward, and as featuring an upfront, ongoing, and transparent dialogue with counterparts to negotiate clear obligations and expectations, which directly contribute to defining the meaning, the goals, and the outcomes of research in stable ways.
But we question the special connection drawn between secrecy and research in contexts of security or the equation of anthropologist as spy operative there to bring into better focus the residual clandestinity of more typically uncontroversial research practice. Highlighting how such clandestinity is built into ethnography, and can even be ethnographically enabling, brings into better view the potential and limits for anthropological practice within the security sector. She explores variances in disciplinary meanings of apparently standard ethical terms such as informed consent, and with respect to such commonplace ethnographic activities as conducting an interview.
And if the ethics of interviewing are central to how we negotiate relationships with research subjects in the field, Lederman convincingly demonstrates that practices of interviewing and associated ethical concerns vary significantly from one social science discipline to another. Deception is, in fact, part of the research design.
Full prior disclosure is not an option. Psychologists, therefore, commonly conduct in-depth exit interviews with their subjects. She shows how this relationship does not simply resolve itself into anything resembling a consensus about the appropriate ethical stance toward secrecy.
Anthropology has nevertheless maintained an abiding relationship with deceptions and complicities of various sizes and shapes. And interpretations are developed largely in private. Field notes are still jealously guarded and conventionally not publicly circulated. At the same time, anthropological ethics has recognized limits to transparency, as when seeking to preserve the anonymity of victims to protect them from reprisal while documenting wartime atrocities. Rather, what they mean necessarily changes with the changing contexts of research.
As new possibilities for research open up, and as varieties of relationships with counterparts continue to be debated and to enable new sorts of collaborative projects, the challenge is not one of confronting a choice between secrecy and transparency.
It is instead one of working through the irreducible tension between the two, as they are both present in any research relationship and as they pose different dilemmas for work anthropologists might be doing. And anthropologists continue to consider implications of so-called military anthropology. As an object lesson in the often problematic invitation to military cooperation, the deeply flawed Human Terrain System program illustrates well the perils of anthropology at the service of military humanitarian efforts.
Members of Human Terrain Teams are unable to retain reliable control over their own data once collected. There is no programmatic effort to protect counterparts or the confidentiality of informants. Altman observes that "This radical plan fundamentally to transform kin-based societies to market-based ones is based on some highly contentious notions [ A recent publication which has made a big impact on anthropology in Australia is the collection of highly polemical essays published in by the anthropologist-linguist Peter Sutton "The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the end of the liberal consensus".
In this book, Sutton claims to be breaking the silence of some anthropologists who, together with the political left, have, since the s, been supporting the movement which aimed at decolonization of indigenous peoples in Australia. The author openly defends government interventions under the pretext that is impossible to remain silent in view of the tragic situation of many indigenous communities, and that measures were necessary to save these indigenous communities from "descent into dysfunction" Sutton 3.
Sutton describes the Wik people of Aurukun, in the Cape York Peninsula, with whom he did fieldwork from the s, and later participated in applied research projects of community assistance, as well as acting as principal researcher on the Wik native title claim, as having "gone from a once liveable and vibrant community, as I had first experienced it, to a disaster zone. Levels of violent conflict, rape, child and elder assault and neglect had rocketed upwards since the introduction of a regular alcohol supply in " 1.
Feeling himself powerless to influence state policy, Sutton attacks his colleagues in an emotional outburst for remaining silent, looks for indigenous traditional cultural traits which might explain the current situation of violence, and justifies government intervention.
Sutton's book has raised deep criticism and resulted in a separation between those anthropologists and indigenous leaders who strongly disagree with the Northern Territory federal intervention, others who, with Sutton, sympathise with the intervention as a necessary measure to change the appalling conditions in some indigenous communities, and others who accept some form of government intervention but are highly critical of the way it has been done.
In Canada, publications by Bruce Miller examine tradition and law in the Coast Salish world in British Columbia province, and the politics of nonrecognition of indigenous peoples by national states , focusing especially the United States and Canada, but also widening the discussion to a comparison at an international level about national states and the politics of nonrecognition. This same author organized a collection of essays which includes articles written by indigenous leaders , and a book about indigenous oral history in the courts A publication organized by Mario Blaser, Harvey Feit and Glenn McRae , unites articles which examine the impacts of large-scale development projects in Canada and around the world.
The history of the native fisheries in British Columbia and colonial prohibitions to salmon fishing and failure to recognize alternative indigenous legal frameworks is examined by Douglas Harris , and a publication by Jennifer Kramer explores how the Nuxalk people of British Columbia negotiate questions such as: Who owns culture? How should culture be transmitted to future generations? Where does selling and buying Nuxalk art fit into attempts to regains control of heritage?
Indigenous Studies And Engaged Anthropology
This author looks at the ways the Nuxalk use their cultural patrimony to assert their collective national identity in their attempt to regain self-determination in British Columbia. The style of anthropology practised in Canada emerged above all under the influence of American anthropology, but was also influenced by British and French anthropology, made easy by the English and French languages and by academic exchanges between these countries, and more recently between Canada and Australia.
These factors reinforce it being characterized as being "semi-peripheral" according to the opinion of many anthropologists who work in Canada, in the same sense of "peripheral anthropologies" used by Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira One factor which explains the dynamic character of anthropology in Canada has been pointed out by the Canadian anthropologist Marilyn Silverman, who in her article on the colonial encounter in anthropology in Canada, concludes that "Surely it cannot be accidental that Canadian anthropologists, in the periphery of an empire, are concerned with the political-economic trajectory of power and exploitation in its various forms" Vered Amit affirms that "in terms of the reproduction of anthropology as an academic discipline in Canada, the problem may be not so much that we are peripheral but that we are not quite peripheral enough" Amit clarifies her statement referring to anthropology in Canada, affirming: "We are a marginal annex of the centre, and that gives us access to many of its activities without allowing us to exert much influence on its development.
This brief examination of three styles of Anthropology with indigenous peoples reveals many noticeable differences, especially those resulting from very different histories and styles of colonization between three European powers - Portugal, Britain and France. Obviously, the local histories and differences are far more complex than can be dealt with in a short article and a flattening of nuance is an inevitable problem when surveying such large issues. However, despite enormous cultural and historical diversity, the colonial situations shared by Brazil, Canada and Australia reveal some amazing commonalities which are becoming ever more evident as the national borders of Anthropology are becoming less rigid, and the indigenous political movements are becoming more and more international, resorting to international law in indigenous rights.
Public Anthropology | Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology
Over the past twenty five years the indigenous political movements have become increasingly sophisticated and globalized in their organization, which has made research in Anthropology more complex and, at the same time, more dynamic, as researchers in Anthropology, indigenous or non-indigenous, work with indigenous intellectuals from diverse academic areas. The taken-for granted inequalities of the colonial past between anthropologists and the indigenous peoples researched have been replaced by negotiations between anthropologists and these peoples, to carry out research on more equal terms, in which the anthropologist must respect the demands and interests of the indigenous peoples in collaborative and participatory research, frequently sharing the field with indigenous anthropologists from the same peoples with whom research is carried out.
Similar divergences of opinion are encountered in the multiple positions held by indigenous leaders and their organisations in an increasingly complex world. Bibliographical References. Coercive Reconciliation: stabilize, normalize, exit Aboriginal Australia. Melbourne: Arena Publications.
http://co.organiccrap.com/49211.php AMIT, Vered. Paradoxes for the reproduction of Canadian anthropology". In: J. Harrison; R. Darnell orgs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Arrernte present, Arrernte past: invasion, violence, and imagination in indigenous Central Australia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.